Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

King v. Burwell

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:10:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Supreme Court decision came down and it upheld the ACA. Your thoughts?
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:47:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:10:10 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The Supreme Court decision came down and it upheld the ACA. Your thoughts?

A correct decision.
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 11:32:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't know what to think. On one hand, it is within the spirit of the law, and one could argue that by having the feds create the exchange the state created it via the feds, especially where the states decided to opt out. On the other hand, I don't see the language as being ambiguous, so the argument to use the spirit of the law is null and void. Ultimately, this decision is largely moot, as the issue is one word, and that word is easily amended, and the fact this went unnoticed, was erronously stated in the law, and no efforts were made to do anything about it (since it is a tax issue, it could have been enacted retroactively), just makes me despise politicians more.
jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 9:00:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:10:10 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The Supreme Court decision came down and it upheld the ACA. Your thoughts?

As Scalia said, "The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says "Exchange established by the State" it means "Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government." That is of course quite absurd, and the Court"s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."

If anyone has time, give his dissent a read; it is a really strong one, and probably one of his bests.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 9:24:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:10:10 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The Supreme Court decision came down and it upheld the ACA. Your thoughts?

Republicans dodged a bullet on this one. If it had been literally interpreted and the subsidy stopped in the states that delegated to the Federal gov, which in turn meant they did not expand medicaid, they would have suffered the wrath of many upset people on the federal echange and media would have had a field day.

The worst of it would have been what the Republican senate and house would have done about it. It would have literally split the party in pieces. I think they realized they dodged a bullet. They can now use is as a rally cry to bring the party together and energize the base rather than a crisis that would have ripped it apart.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:11:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 9:59:40 AM, TN05 wrote:


Yes, because our constitution says that if Johnathan Gruber says it then it is law.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:27:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 10:11:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:59:40 AM, TN05 wrote:


Yes, because our constitution says that if Johnathan Gruber says it then it is law.

The ruling was that the 'intent' of the law wasn't that states without exchanges can't have subsidies. Gruber helped write the law and said the exact opposite. Either he is wrong about the bill he helped write, or the court fundamentally misinterpreted the law.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:55:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 10:27:22 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:11:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:59:40 AM, TN05 wrote:


Yes, because our constitution says that if Johnathan Gruber says it then it is law.

The ruling was that the 'intent' of the law wasn't that states without exchanges can't have subsidies. Gruber helped write the law and said the exact opposite. Either he is wrong about the bill he helped write, or the court fundamentally misinterpreted the law.

I was very surprised with the ruling. Thought Obamacare was going to be struck down. I think this sets a new precedent.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:56:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 10:55:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:27:22 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:11:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:59:40 AM, TN05 wrote:


Yes, because our constitution says that if Johnathan Gruber says it then it is law.

The ruling was that the 'intent' of the law wasn't that states without exchanges can't have subsidies. Gruber helped write the law and said the exact opposite. Either he is wrong about the bill he helped write, or the court fundamentally misinterpreted the law.

I was very surprised with the ruling. Thought Obamacare was going to be struck down. I think this sets a new precedent.

I really can't get a grasp on Roberts. His Obamacare decision was absurd, but his dissent to the marriage thing was on point.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:49:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 10:55:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:27:22 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:11:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:59:40 AM, TN05 wrote:


Yes, because our constitution says that if Johnathan Gruber says it then it is law.

The ruling was that the 'intent' of the law wasn't that states without exchanges can't have subsidies. Gruber helped write the law and said the exact opposite. Either he is wrong about the bill he helped write, or the court fundamentally misinterpreted the law.

I was very surprised with the ruling. Thought Obamacare was going to be struck down. I think this sets a new precedent.

Not really. I don't know if everyone notices, but typically in legal documents when there are specific exclusions, it lists the exclusions rather than relies on ambiguous implications of language.

The court realized that there was a disconnect between the IRS code in the law and code the agency regulating the ACA abides by thus there had to be ambiguity in one or the other. When there is ambiguity it is the courts job to make a ruling on it.

This blurb from the major opinion is based upon precedence set in FDA v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

https://supreme.justia.com...

It is instead the Court"s task to determine the correct reading of Section 36B. If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaning"or ambiguity"of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain, the Court must read the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120 . Pp. 7"9.

When read in context, the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. "18031]" is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it could also refer to all Exchanges"both State and Federal"for purposes of the tax credits. If a State chooses not to follow the directive in Section 18031 to establish an Exchange, the Act tells the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish "such Exchange." "18041. And by using the words "such Exchange," the Act indicates that State and Federal Exchanges should be the same. But State and Federal Exchanges would differ in a fundamental way if tax credits were available only on State Exchanges"one type of Exchange would help make insurance more affordable by providing billions of dollars to the States' citizens; the other type of Exchange would not.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:51:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 11:49:50 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:55:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:27:22 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:11:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:59:40 AM, TN05 wrote:


Yes, because our constitution says that if Johnathan Gruber says it then it is law.

The ruling was that the 'intent' of the law wasn't that states without exchanges can't have subsidies. Gruber helped write the law and said the exact opposite. Either he is wrong about the bill he helped write, or the court fundamentally misinterpreted the law.

I was very surprised with the ruling. Thought Obamacare was going to be struck down. I think this sets a new precedent.

Not really. I don't know if everyone notices, but typically in legal documents when there are specific exclusions, it lists the exclusions rather than relies on ambiguous implications of language.

The court realized that there was a disconnect between the IRS code in the law and code the agency regulating the ACA abides by thus there had to be ambiguity in one or the other. When there is ambiguity it is the courts job to make a ruling on it.



This blurb from the major opinion is based upon precedence set in FDA v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

https://supreme.justia.com...

It is instead the Court"s task to determine the correct reading of Section 36B. If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaning"or ambiguity"of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain, the Court must read the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120 . Pp. 7"9.

When read in context, the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. "18031]" is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it could also refer to all Exchanges"both State and Federal"for purposes of the tax credits. If a State chooses not to follow the directive in Section 18031 to establish an Exchange, the Act tells the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish "such Exchange." "18041. And by using the words "such Exchange," the Act indicates that State and Federal Exchanges should be the same. But State and Federal Exchanges would differ in a fundamental way if tax credits were available only on State Exchanges"one type of Exchange would help make insurance more affordable by providing billions of dollars to the States' citizens; the other type of Exchange would not.


In other words there is legal precedence in ruling the way the majority did.
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:01:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
LOL,

Scalia is still pissed off about penalty being defined as a tax by the SCOTUS a few years back.

https://supreme.justia.com...

But this Court"s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed ("penalty" means tax, "further [Medicaid] payments to the State" means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, "established by the State" means not established by the State)
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:04:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 12:01:48 PM, slo1 wrote:

Scalia is ... pissed off

It's his natural state.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:17:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 10:55:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:27:22 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:11:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:59:40 AM, TN05 wrote:


Yes, because our constitution says that if Johnathan Gruber says it then it is law.

The ruling was that the 'intent' of the law wasn't that states without exchanges can't have subsidies. Gruber helped write the law and said the exact opposite. Either he is wrong about the bill he helped write, or the court fundamentally misinterpreted the law.

I was very surprised with the ruling. Thought Obamacare was going to be struck down. I think this sets a new precedent.

Why? It's already been upheld by this same court before.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:58:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 12:17:07 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:55:17 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:27:22 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:11:34 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 9:59:40 AM, TN05 wrote:


Yes, because our constitution says that if Johnathan Gruber says it then it is law.

The ruling was that the 'intent' of the law wasn't that states without exchanges can't have subsidies. Gruber helped write the law and said the exact opposite. Either he is wrong about the bill he helped write, or the court fundamentally misinterpreted the law.

I was very surprised with the ruling. Thought Obamacare was going to be struck down. I think this sets a new precedent.

Why? It's already been upheld by this same court before.

Regarding a different situation.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 3:28:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What Roberts did, more or less, in Burwell is not accept a stupid and pedantic interpretation of statutory language that would defy the Affordable Care Act's purpose. There is no reason for the phrase "established by" a "state" to exclude the exchanges established by the federal government, and Scalia's obtuse rant to the contrary is really nothing more than an intellectually sophisticated method of pouting that he didn't get his way.

The holding is clear: Section 36B's tax credits are available to individual states that have a federal exchange. Any interpretation of to the contrary would defy reason, yet, that is exactly the interpretation that those dissenting would endeavor to adopt -and the only reason they'd adopt such an admittedly absurd interpretation is to strike the law (read: engage in judicial activism). Roberts, despite his peculiarities, is an incredibly adroit chief justice; Burwell is evidence of that.
Tsar of DDO